Out of the Box » King William Countyhttp://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box
Notes from the Archives at The Library of VirginiaWed, 14 Mar 2018 13:55:38 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.1Digital Images of All Legislative Petitions Now Available on Virginia Memoryhttp://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2014/06/11/digital-images-of-all-legislative-petitions-now-available-on-virginia-memory/
http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/2014/06/11/digital-images-of-all-legislative-petitions-now-available-on-virginia-memory/#commentsWed, 11 Jun 2014 12:00:16 +0000http://www.virginiamemory.com/blogs/out_of_the_box/?p=7909The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that the final batch of digital images of legislative petitions to the Virginia General Assembly, 1776-1865, is now available on Virginia Memory, the Library of Virginia’s digital collections website. The list of localities added includes present-day West Virginia and Kentucky counties and numerous localities classified as Lost Records Localities. With this addition, the number of legislative petitions available online number over 24,000.

Legislative petitions are one the few primary source documents that provide valuable insight concerning the plight of Native Americans during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In reading them, one will discover the depth of poverty and disease Native Americans experienced in Virginia. An example can be found in a petition filed in October 1786 by Simon and John Turner of Southampton County asking the General Assembly for an act appointing trustees to join them in the conveyance of land owned by the Nansemond Indian tribe located on the north side of the Nottoway River. They introduced themselves as the “only surviving men of the Nansemond Indians.” Proceeds from the sale would be used to bring relief from “bodily infirmities” and oppressive poverty for the last of the Nansemond tribe, the two petitioners and three women, who currently resided with their friend and neighbors in the Nottoway tribe. The … read more »

Legislative petitions are one the few primary source documents that provide valuable insight concerning the plight of Native Americans during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. In reading them, one will discover the depth of poverty and disease Native Americans experienced in Virginia. An example can be found in a petition filed in October 1786 by Simon and John Turner of Southampton County asking the General Assembly for an act appointing trustees to join them in the conveyance of land owned by the Nansemond Indian tribe located on the north side of the Nottoway River. They introduced themselves as the “only surviving men of the Nansemond Indians.” Proceeds from the sale would be used to bring relief from “bodily infirmities” and oppressive poverty for the last of the Nansemond tribe, the two petitioners and three women, who currently resided with their friend and neighbors in the Nottoway tribe. The Turners informed the General Assembly that “without this timely relief we must drag on a wretched existence to the end of our days.”

Legislative petitions found in King William County and Northampton County document efforts by white inhabitants to take land from Native Americans. The white petitioners argued that Native American lands had become havens for free blacks and mulattos. In a King William County petition filed in 1843, white citizens expressed their fears concerning the large number of free blacks and mulattos who had settled on lands owned in the county by the Pamunkey Tribe. They posed a dangerous threat to the “large slaveholding community” in the county. To remove this threat, they wanted the General Assembly to sell the Pamunkey land. As far as the few remaining Pamunkeys and their claim to the land, the white citizens stated emphatically that the “claims of the Indian no longer exist. His blood has so largely mingled with the negro race as to have obliterated all striking features of Indian extraction.” The white citizens of Northampton County filed similar legislative petitions concerning the lands of the Gingaskin Tribe. Read about these petitions in an earlier Out of the Box blog post.

The Legislative Petitions project began 15 years ago through the efforts of State Records Archivist Craig Moore. Craig, on his own initiative, created an on-line database that indexes the legislative petitions. In late 2012, the Library partnered with Backstage Library Works in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, to digitize the collection straight from the microfilm which was created in-house in 2002. Over the past 18 months, Library staffers took the 150,000 digital images, united them with Craig’s database entries, and added them to DigiTool – the Library’s digital asset management system. Unfortunately, Craig did not live to see this project completed. After his death in 2013, a group of Craig’s friends and colleagues at the Library completed the remaining work. Through the efforts of Sonya Coleman, Erin Faison, Kathy Jordan, Rebecca Morgan, Jenny Rogers, and Jason Roma, this valuable resource, first envisioned in 1999, is now complete and freely available to the public.

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that digital images for the King William County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1868-1913, are now available online through the Chancery Records Index on the LVA’s Virginia Memory site. Because they rely so heavily on the testimony of witnesses, chancery causes contain a wealth of historical and genealogical information and are especially useful when researching local, state, social, or legal history. Chancery causes often contain correspondence, property lists (including slaves), lists of heirs, and vital statistics that are especially helpful in documenting the African American experience, family history, women’s history, and Southern business and labor history. Following are a few suits of interest found in the collection.

The King William chancery causes contain several suits which illustrate the experiences of Native Americans in the Tidewater region. The Mattaponi Tribe is represented in Chancery Cause 1895-002, George F. Custalow vs. James S. Robinson, Trustee. In the case, two members of the Mattaponi Tribe, Custalow and Austin Key, dispute ownership over a piece of land. In Chancery Cause Walter Miles vs. Alice Miles, 1907-006, two members of the Pamunkey Tribe, living in Indian Town, head to the King William County court to seek a divorce. Walter Miles claimed that on 15 November 1904 he was called before the chiefs of the tribe to face a charge … read more »

]]>

The Library of Virginia is pleased to announce that digital images for the King William County (Va.) Chancery Causes, 1868-1913, are now available online through the Chancery Records Index on the LVA’s Virginia Memory site. Because they rely so heavily on the testimony of witnesses, chancery causes contain a wealth of historical and genealogical information and are especially useful when researching local, state, social, or legal history. Chancery causes often contain correspondence, property lists (including slaves), lists of heirs, and vital statistics that are especially helpful in documenting the African American experience, family history, women’s history, and Southern business and labor history. Following are a few suits of interest found in the collection.

The King William chancery causes contain several suits which illustrate the experiences of Native Americans in the Tidewater region. The Mattaponi Tribe is represented in Chancery Cause 1895-002, George F. Custalow vs. James S. Robinson, Trustee. In the case, two members of the Mattaponi Tribe, Custalow and Austin Key, dispute ownership over a piece of land. In Chancery Cause Walter Miles vs. Alice Miles, 1907-006, two members of the Pamunkey Tribe, living in Indian Town, head to the King William County court to seek a divorce. Walter Miles claimed that on 15 November 1904 he was called before the chiefs of the tribe to face a charge of seducing Alice Miles under the promise of marriage. Walter admitted to a relationship with Alice but denied that there was ever any promise of matrimony. After being threatened with prosecution and expulsion from the tribe, Walter gave in and married Alice on 17 November. In seeking his divorce, Walter claimed that the child Alice gave birth to could not possibly be his as it was born a mere five months after their affair. Walter was granted his divorce in 1907.

The King William chancery causes are also a valuable source for African American history. Chancery Cause 1888-016, George W. Washington vs. J. B. Slaughter, Trustee, etc., is an unfortunate example of how African Americans were systematically denied civil rights as Washington, a former slave, fought for the ownership of property he had always believed to be his. Freed in 1845 by the will of Eleanor W. Hales, Washington had to choose a new owner “for his protection” if he wanted to remain in Virginia. Washington chose William Robinson, and Benjamin Robinson “inherited” Washington after his father’s death. Washington lived his life as a free man, keeping any wages earned for his own use.

In 1859, Washington and Robinson purchased a piece of land that Washington believed to be his even though the deed was in Robinson’s name. Washington only left the land during the Civil War when he fled to Richmond. Upon his return, Washington found his property had been ruined by Union and Confederate troops. He repaired the property at his own expense, and then partnered with James Harris to operate a bar and restaurant on the premises. In January 1873, Benjamin Robinson deeded the property away as a lien for a debt and then died unexpectedly in December of that same year. George Washington attempted to halt the sale of his property and filed a suit in the King William courts. The case took ten years to settle and went all the way up to the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, where it was ultimately decided that in 1859 Washington was a slave with no civil rights and was therefore incapable of entering into any type of contract with anyone. The final decrees in the case show that the land was then purchased by someone other than Washington.

The King William County chancery causes are also full of political intrigue and scandal. Two separate suits, 1886-025 and 1888-010, allege fraud during a town council election in 1886. In 1902-015, Robert S. Ryland vs. County of King William, etc., Ryland fights criminal proceedings brought against him for embezzlement of funds while he was serving as county treasurer. He accused Burnley Taylor, Commission of Revenue, of fraudulently miscopying the land and property books he used as treasurer.

Additional images of documents from counties or incorporated cities classified as “Lost Records Localities” have been added to the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection available on Virginia Memory. The bulk of the new addition consists of copies of wills from the following localities: Botetourt, Buckingham, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Gloucester, Hanover, James City, King and Queen, King George, King William, Prince George, Prince William, Rockingham, and Spotsylvania counties. These wills were used as exhibits in Augusta County and City of Petersburg chancery causes. The index number of the chancery suit that the “Lost Record Locality” document appeared in is included in the catalog record. Be sure to search the Chancery Records Index for the chancery suit to learn how, for example, a will from King and Queen County recorded in 1749 ended up as an exhibit in an Augusta County chancery case that ended in 1819.

Also, images of Buckingham County (Va.) Tithable List A-G, 1764 have been added to the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection. Most of the early court records from Buckingham County were destroyed during a courthouse fire in 1869. The 1764 tithable list was spared destruction because, at the time of the fire, it was located in the Prince Edward County courthouse. From 1789 to 1809, Prince Edward County was the seat of a district court that heard civil and criminal suits … read more »

]]>

Additional images of documents from counties or incorporated cities classified as “Lost Records Localities” have been added to the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection available on Virginia Memory. The bulk of the new addition consists of copies of wills from the following localities: Botetourt, Buckingham, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Gloucester, Hanover, James City, King and Queen, King George, King William, Prince George, Prince William, Rockingham, and Spotsylvania counties. These wills were used as exhibits in Augusta County and City of Petersburg chancery causes. The index number of the chancery suit that the “Lost Record Locality” document appeared in is included in the catalog record. Be sure to search the Chancery Records Index for the chancery suit to learn how, for example, a will from King and Queen County recorded in 1749 ended up as an exhibit in an Augusta County chancery case that ended in 1819.

Also, images of Buckingham County (Va.) Tithable List A-G, 1764 have been added to the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection. Most of the early court records from Buckingham County were destroyed during a courthouse fire in 1869. The 1764 tithable list was spared destruction because, at the time of the fire, it was located in the Prince Edward County courthouse. From 1789 to 1809, Prince Edward County was the seat of a district court that heard civil and criminal suits from the following localities: Buckingham, Charlotte, Cumberland, Halifax, and Prince Edward counties. It’s possible the tithable list might have been an exhibit in a Buckingham County suit heard in the district court, but no style of suit or exhibit number is found on the document. More likely, the Buckingham County clerk was preparing either a large suit or a group of smaller suits to be heard in the Prince Edward County District Court, and he needed something to keep the bundle of documents together. The tithable list was the right size and so he used it as a wrapper for the bundle and sent it on to Prince Edward County, and there the tithable list remained until the Prince Edward County District Court records were transferred to the Library of Virginia and eventually discovered by one of our archivists. Perhaps due to the need of a wrapper, a valuable record from Buckingham County’s colonial era exists today and can now be viewed online.

Additional records will be added to the digital collection periodically as our archivists continue to identify “lost” documents in the records they process. Please check back as this is an ongoing project. For more information on the Lost Records Localities Digital Collection, see the earlier blog post “Finding What Was Lost.”